Simulation argument II: adding information

Simulations could be realistic in many ways while not being realistic in some aspects. If that is somehow noticeable, then we might find out that we do live inside a simulation. Instead of speculating about us living in a simulation by guessing the probability of the existence of post-humans and their abilities, resources, and possible motivations, it seems more illuminating to look at the available information about our universe. Perhaps there is a more conclusive argument to be made. It may go like this:

  1. If this universe is genuine, we cannot be sure that it is. A simulation can be realistic and come with authentic laws of reality.
  2. This universe may have fake properties, but we cannot establish this because we do not know the properties of an authentic universe.
  3. Breaching the laws of reality is unrealistic in any case. If it happens, we may have evidence of this universe being virtual.

It follows from (1) and (2) that we cannot use the properties of this universe reflected in the laws of reality to determine whether this universe is real or a simulation. And it does not matter whether the laws of reality are genuine or not. If they are authentic and breached, this universe is a simulation. If they are fake, this universe is a simulation anyway. Science can establish laws of reality or properties of this universe, but science cannot determine whether they are real or fake.

According to science, this universe kicked off fourteen billion years ago with a big bang. Ten billion years later, life on this planet began to develop out of chemical processes. It took another four billion years for life on Earth to evolve into what it is today. According to science, there is no evidence of an intelligent creator, the laws of physics always apply, and we are biological organisms made out of carbon and water.

Hence, the following properties of our universe have been certified by science. They are among the established laws of our reality, reflecting what scientists believe to be realistic:

  • The laws of physics always apply inside their realm, for instance, Newton’s first law of motion, which states that a change in the speed or direction of the movement of a body requires a force.
  • The universe started with a big bang. Life on this planet emerged from chemical processes, and evolution shaped it. There is no evidence of a creator.
  • We are biological organisms, and our consciousnesses reside in our bodies. There is no spirit or soul.

Evidence to the contrary might indicate that we do live inside a simulation. Meaningful coincidences suggest there is an intelligent force directing events. The paranormal defies the laws of physics from time to time. Evidence for reincarnation indicates that we are not biological organisms. But meaningful coincidences can materialise by chance. And there may be laws of reality we do not know. And there is plenty of evidence of the consciousness residing in the body while only a few people remember a previous life. A convincing case for us living in a simulation requires clarification as to why it is the best explanation for our existence. The clarification might consist of the following parts:

  • Our existence is not a miracle that requires a creator, but this universe can be a simulation.
  • The possible motivations of post-humans may allow us to establish that we do live inside a simulation and what our purpose is.
  • Science cannot determine that his universe is a simulation as we do not know the properties of a real universe.
  • Alternative explanations for strange phenomena seem less plausible as they run into logical inconsistencies.
  • Evidence suggestive of reincarnation might suffice to conclude that our consciousnesses do not reside in our bodies.
  • Evidence suggestive of ghosts, premonitions, and alien abductions might suffice to conclude that the laws of physics do not always apply.
  • The distribution of meaningful coincidences could indicate that an intelligence coordinates events in this universe.

Establishing that the distribution of meaningful coincidences is not the outcome of chance requires information about probabilities. Meaningful coincidences can happen by accident, and it is impossible to determine the odds of them materialising. Still, there are arguments to be made to certify that mere accident is not so likely. For that, we may consider the following:

  • Some types of meaningful coincidences are less likely to occur than others. The more elaborate the scheme, the less likely it is the result of mere chance.
  • Mere chance is also unlikely when elaborate meaningful coincidences surround the most important historical events.
  • If meaningful coincides are not distributed evenly across people and time-frames, and some people are heavily affected, it suggests interference and perhaps even destiny for those involved.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.